If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

User Info Menu

Join Date

May 2008

Posts

16,955

NFL Teams Favor Spread Offense

Just makes sense given that the talent pool the NFL draws from isn't "training" players to run the "old school" power football offense that so many don't want to let go of. The name of the game is passing and speed. That isn't going to change because you can't get players from the college ranks who play "old school" football. Trying to run the ball like it is 1975 is just plain stupid.

User Info Menu

Join Date

Jul 2010

Posts

1,350

Originally Posted by Oviedo

Just makes sense given that the talent pool the NFL draws from isn't "training" players to run the "old school" power football offense that so many don't want to let go of. The name of the game is passing and speed. That isn't going to change because you can't get players from the college ranks who play "old school" football. Trying to run the ball like it is 1975 is just plain stupid.

But if most teams are doing this, there is a schoool of thought to counter it: If the offenses are leaning to the spread, passing offense, that means that the defenses are putting emphasis on it as well. Instead of run-stuffing big people, they're going for speed in coverage. Isn't a good way to take advantage of that is to have a decent run game?

User Info Menu

Join Date

May 2008

Posts

16,955

Originally Posted by Eich

But if most teams are doing this, there is a schoool of thought to counter it: If the offenses are leaning to the spread, passing offense, that means that the defenses are putting emphasis on it as well. Instead of run-stuffing big people, they're going for speed in coverage. Isn't a good way to take advantage of that is to have a decent run game?

You need a run game but you probably can't match the scoring by trying to run the ball at 4 yards per carry. The "fast break" offense will just outscore you and you can't really slow it down because the rules favor that kind of play.

User Info Menu

Join Date

May 2008

Posts

16,955

I found this statement in the article interesting given that everyone assumed Haley would be reining in the passing game.

Although offensive coordinator Todd Haley won’t fully unveil the Steelers’ new system until the Sept. 9 opener, they’re spreading it out, too. Ben Roethlisberger averaged 3,868 yards passing the past three seasons, a figure approached only once in team history before he arrived in 2004.

I'm totally OK with this. With the game on the line I want the ball in the hands of Big Ben, Antonio Brown, Mike Wallace (if he feels like playing) instead of Ike Redman or Dwyer. Our best talent is our receivers and QB not our RBs. Play to that strength.

User Info Menu

Join Date

May 2008

Posts

21,299

If the other team can't stop Dwyer or Redman and they are getting tons of pressure on Ben... I want the RB's to close out the game. I think playing to our strength instead of the opponents weakness is going down the BA road...

I'm not suggesting RUTM if we need 7 in a 2 minute offense... but if we are up by 3 and the opponent can't stop our ground game why throw the ball? Just because it's our strength?

One other thing... for all this spread offense talk who was the #1 prospect the last 2 years? Andrew Luck.

Most fast break offenses look pedestrian when up against a good D. I have yet to see the Pats put up 50 in the playoffs against a worthy opponent. Sure it works against the Bills and Dolphins but once the playoffs start the games tend to stay in the 17 to 24 point range.

User Info Menu

Join Date

Dec 2008

Location

Inside Your Head

Posts

10,941

Originally Posted by Eich

But if most teams are doing this, there is a schoool of thought to counter it: If the offenses are leaning to the spread, passing offense, that means that the defenses are putting emphasis on it as well. Instead of run-stuffing big people, they're going for speed in coverage. Isn't a good way to take advantage of that is to have a decent run game?

Also a premium is going to have to be paid to personnel that fit in the spread offense. So maybe you can get more value paying for the players most people don't value.

User Info Menu

Join Date

May 2008

Location

Where the Rubber Meets the Road (in NEPA)

Posts

28,695

In order to run a spread offense, it would probably be a good idea to employ a guy who is able to take the top off a defense, giving you big play possibilities as well as opening up things underneath as well (even if it costs more than $8 million per season to secure his services).

NFL player locker room talk: Discussing what can be done about racial inequality and criminal justice reform.

According to the highest office in the country, some "very fine people" marched with torches in a violent protest in Charlottesville, but participating in a non-violent protest on a football field means you are an S.O.B. who should be fired.

User Info Menu

Join Date

May 2008

Posts

16,955

Inventing logic to stay stuck in the past usually does not equate to superior performance in the future. It's like a buggy whip maker justifying the horse drawn carriage by saying buggy whips are cheaper than tires. How'd that work out?

User Info Menu

Join Date

May 2008

Posts

21,299

Originally Posted by Oviedo

Inventing logic to stay stuck in the past usually does not equate to superior performance in the future. It's like a buggy whip maker justifying the horse drawn carriage by saying buggy whips are cheaper than tires. How'd that work out?

horrible analogy slanted in your favor....

How about...electric motor vs hybrid electric motor vs gas motor...

or wind/solar power vs coal.

At the end of the day...LOL, it's football. Run and pass... and all the gimmicks and new offenses will get exposed by the D and it will circle back to the basics. It always does...

User Info Menu

Join Date

Jul 2010

Posts

1,350

Is it better to be great at one phase of the game (like the Cheaters of 2007) or is it better to be pretty good in all of them (like the Steelers of 2005 & 2008 ?

I do agree that our play-makers should be the focus of our offense (Ben, Brown, Wallace, Sanders, Miller). BUT since we're already solidifying the line to help Ben, you could really do some damage by having a really good running game to go along with it all.

The Ravens, by having Rice, force us to have some run-stuffers on defense. And that should play to their advantage in the playoffs if they meet teams that don't have run-stuffers. We should be able to do the same with our backs and a balanced attack.

I don't want a return to 1975. Nor do I think Rooney had this in mind when he asked for a commitment to the run. I just think in today's game, the ability to run makes your passing game all that more dangerous. Peyton couldn't get his ring until he finally started relying more on the run as a compliment to what he was doing. And as good as Brady is in the regular season throwing the ball 40+ times a game, he hasn't won the big game since the cheating stopped and while cheating, he couldn't outscore the opponent by more than 3 points.